tfl: The Flatiron Life

Jonah Goldberg asks if there should be a test to determine competency for voting.  He opens with a set of possible questions,

Can you name all three branches of government? Can you name even one? Do you know who your congressman is? Your senators? Do you even know how many senators each state gets?

On Independence Day, Joscelynn and I talked about this.  We ultimatly came to the conclusion that a test would be unacceptable.  However, we think encouraging people generally to vote should end and discouraging the uniformed to vote should likely begin.  I don’t think low voter turn out is inhearantly bad.

For fun, let’s assume we are creating a test.  What questions would you like to see your fellow citizens know in order to vote?

(Note: The political nature of deciding what to test is probably reason enough to not have a test.)

If you live in the Second City and have not voted yet, I encourage you to do so. I also strongly encourage you to make an informed choice. In Chicago an informed choice is anything but a vote for Richard Daley or your current Alderman. If you want more than my word, read about the Mayoral election and the Aldermanic election.

Remember, Chicago is a Democracy. Stop acting like a battered wife.

If we elect a bum worse than the one we threw out, we can vote for someone else four years later. Democracy’s not that complicated. If we don’t start behaving like we live in one, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves for the consequences.

This is what is going on here for ballot access in the Windy City. We are renewing the mandate for the Machine’s big talkers in the City portion of our redundant government system. Turns out some people want to spoil this renewal and are trying to steal away the sweet gig of a six figure paycheck for 12 second Tuesdays of work. You might also be surprised to learn that some people are even trying to unseat His Honor Richard M. Daley, Mayor. This is crazy, just imagine how much repainting all the city vehicles and other various locations with the Mayors name would cost.

The Machine is having none of this. The lawyers for the establishment are poised and ready to challenge petition on myriad areas.

The rules for being on a ballot have always bothered me. Should there be a barrier to entry? If so, what is reasonable? I tend to think that everyone should have an equal shot to be on the ballot. If 100 people want to run for an office let them. Isn’t that better for the health of democracy than limiting to people who can afford the machine to find 10 times the number of people required to sign the petitions and then hire the lawyer to defend each of those names?

The party system is supposed to help here. The parties dictate how they choose the candidate to represent this large group of like minded peers. Then the party candidate face off in the general election. This system breaks down when there are only two parties and the barrier to entry for new parties is high. Also, in Chicago we have “non-partisan” elections.

I think a practical solution to ballot access might be flipping the system. Instead of people signing petitions and then having them delivered and certified. Candidates register their intention to run for an office and then ask the constitutes to register their intent to consider a candidate. The constitute has to validate who they are using the same procedures used on election day. There are no challenges, a reasonable barrier to entry, and more people running for office and invigorating the system.